REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.  4113 OF 2022
Mohamed Ali    …Appellant(s)
Versus
V. Jaya & Ors.    …Respondent(s)
With 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4114 OF 2022
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
common judgment and order  dated 19.11.2021 passed by
the   High   Court   of   Madras   at   Madurai   Bench   in   Civil
Revision   Petition   (NPD)   No.   1054/2021   and   Civil   Revision
Petition   (PD)   No.   1301/2021,   by   which,   in   exercise   of
powers   under   Article   227   of   the   Constitution   of   India   the
High Court has set aside the ex­parte judgment and decree
passed by the learned Trial Court, the original plaintiff has
1

preferred the present appeals.   
 
2. The   facts   leading   to   the   present   appeals   in   a   nutshell   are
as under: ­ 
2.1 That   the   appellant   herein   –   original   plaintiff   instituted   a
suit   being   O.S.   No.   15/2010   on   the   file   of   I   Additional
District Judge (PCR), Trichy for specific performance of an
agreement to sell dated 17.07.2009. The said suit was filed
against   four   defendants.   The   defendants   were   placed   ex­
parte.   The   learned   Trial   Court   passed   an   ex­parte
judgment   and   decree   dated   31.10.2012.   That   original
defendant  Nos. 2 to 4 filed an  application to  set aside the
ex­parte  judgment  and   decree.  There  was  a   delay   of  2345
days   in   filing   the   petition   to   set   aside   the   ex­parte
judgment and decree. Therefore, original defendant Nos. 2
to 4 filed an application requesting to condone the delay of
2345   days.   The   original   defendant   No.   1   also   filed   an
application to set aside the ex­parte judgment and decree.
There was a delay of 1522 days in filing the petition to set
aside the ex­parte judgment and decree. Therefore, original
defendant   No.   1   also   filed   an   application   to   condone   the
delay of 1522 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex­
2

parte   judgment   and   decree.   The   learned   Trial   Court
dismissed   both   the   applications,   one   filed   by   original
defendant   No.   1   and   another   filed   by   original   defendant
Nos. 2 to 4. 
2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by
the   learned   Trial   Court   refusing   to   condone   the   delay   of
2345   days   in   filing   the   petition   to   set   aside   the   ex­parte
judgment   and   decree,   original   defendant   Nos.   2   to   4
preferred Civil Revision Petition No. 1054/2021 before the
High   Court.   Though,   original   defendant   No.   1   did   not
challenge   the   order   passed   by   the   learned   Trial   Court
dismissing   his   application   to   condone   the   delay   of   1522
days   in   filing   the   petition   to   set   aside   the   ex­parte
judgment and decree, filed revision petition before the High
Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being
Civil   Revision   Petition   No.   1301/2021  to   set  aside   the   ex­
parte   judgment   and   decree.   By   the   impugned   common
judgment   and   order,   the   High   Court   has   allowed   the
aforesaid   two   revision   petitions   and   has   set   aside   the
judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court by
observing   that   the   judgment   and   decree   passed   by   the
3

learned Trial Court is on a total non­application of mind as
before   passing   the   decree   for   specific   performance,   the
learned   Trial   Court   has   not   considered   the   aspect   of
readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff. Thus,
by the impugned common judgment and order in exercise
of   powers   under   Article   227   of   the   Constitution   of   India,
the   High   Court   has   set   aside   the   ex­parte   judgment   and
decree   passed   by   the   learned   Trial   Court,   without
expressing   anything   on   merits,   whether   the   learned   Trial
Court   was   justified   in   refusing   to   condone   the   delay   of
2345   days   in   filing   the   petition   to   set   aside   the   ex­parte
judgment   and   decree.   Thus,   the   High   Court   has   allowed
Civil   Revision   Petition   (CRP)   No.   1045/2021   filed   by
original   defendant   Nos.   2   to   4.   Being   aggrieved   by   the
impugned   judgment(s)   and   order(s)   passed   by   the   High
Court   in   CRP   No.   1301/2021   (filed   by   original   defendant
No.   1   to   set   aside   the   ex­parte   judgment   and   decree)   and
CRP   No.   1045/2021   (filed   by   original   defendant   Nos.   2   to
4) challenging the order passed by the learned Trial Court
refusing   to   condone   the   delay   of   2345   days   in   filing   the
4

petition to set aside the ex­parte judgment and decree, the
original plaintiff has preferred the present appeals.
3. Shri   R.   Balasubramanian,   learned   Senior   Advocate,
appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellant   has   vehemently
submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case
the   High   Court   has   committed   a   grave   error   in   setting
aside the ex­parte judgment and decree in revision petition
in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India.
3.1 It   is   vehemently   submitted   by   learned   Senior   Advocate
appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellant   that   the   ex­parte
judgment   and   decree   passed   by   the   learned   Trial   Court
was   an   appealable   order   and   therefore,   defendant   No.   1
ought   to   have   preferred   an   appeal   rather   than   filing   the
revision   petition   under   Article   227   of   the   Constitution   of
India.   It   is   submitted   that   therefore,   when   a   statutory
appeal   was   provided   against   the   judgment   and   decree
passed   by     learned   Trial   Court,   the   High   Court   ought   not
to have entertained the revision petition under Article 227
of the Constitution of India and ought not to have set aside
5

the   judgment   and   decree   in   exercise   of   powers   under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.    
3.2 It   is   further   contended   that   even   otherwise   the   impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court setting aside
the   ex­parte   judgment   and   decree   is   unsustainable.   It   is
submitted   that   the   High   Court   has   recorded   the   findings
on legality and validity of the judgment and decree passed
by   the   learned   Trial   Court   as   if   the   High   Court   was
considering   the   appeal   against   the   judgment   and   decree
passed   by   the   learned   Trial   Court.   It   is   further   submitted
that the High Court has not at all considered and/or given
any   findings   on   whether   the   learned   Trial   Court   was
justified   in   passing   the   ex­parte   judgment   and   decree   or
not. It is submitted that only in a case where the ex­parte
judgment   and   decree   is   set   aside   after   giving   the   specific
findings   that   the   learned   Trial   Court   was   not   justified
and/or right in passing  the ex­parte judgment and decree
that the merits of the judgment and decree was required to
be considered. 
3.3 It   is   further   submitted   by   learned   Senior   Advocate
appearing on behalf of the appellant – original plaintiff that
6

even otherwise the High Court has not properly considered
the   fact   that   there   was   a   delay   of   1522   days   in   filing   the
petition   by   original   defendant   No.   1   seeking   to   set   aside
the ex­parte judgment and decree. It is submitted that the
learned  Trial  Court  dismissed  the   application   and   refused
to condone the delay  of 1522 days. That the order  passed
by the learned Trial Court refusing to condone the delay of
1522   days   in   filing   the   petition   seeking   to   set   aside   the
judgment   and   decree,   had   attained   finality   as   the   same
was   not   challenged   by   original   defendant   No.   1.   It   is
contended that therefore in the absence of any challenge to
the   order   passed   by   the   learned   Trial   Court   refusing   to
condone   the   delay   of   1522   days,   the   revision
petition/application   filed   by   defendant   No.   1   challenging
the   ex­parte   judgment   and   decree   was   not   required   to   be
entertained. 
3.4 It   is   further   submitted   that   even   otherwise   while   setting
aside   the   ex­parte   judgment   and   decree   in   exercise   of
powers under  Article 227 of  the  Constitution  of India, the
High Court has not exercised its discretion judiciously and
7

has   acted   beyond   the   scope   and   ambit   of   exercise   of
powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 
3.5 It   is   further   urged   by   learned   Senior   Advocate   appearing
on   behalf   of   the   appellant   –   original   plaintiff   that   even
otherwise there are no findings recorded by the High Court
on   whether   the   learned   Trial   Court   was   justified   in   not
condoning   the   delay   of   2345   and   1522   days   in   filing   the
petition for setting aside the ex­parte judgment and decree.
That when there was a huge delay of 2345 and 1522 days
in filing the petition for setting aside the ex­parte judgment
and   decree   filed   by   original   defendants   No.   2   to   4   and
defendant   No.   1,   respectively   and   when   the   learned   Trial
Court by a detailed order refused to condone the delay, the
same ought not to have been set aside by the High Court,
that too, without considering the legality and validity of the
order refusing to condone the delay.                    
3.6 It   is   further   submitted   by   learned   Senior   Advocate
appearing   on   behalf   of   the   original   plaintiff   that   the   High
Court   has   set   aside   the   ex­parte   judgment   and   decree   in
exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of
8

India   as   if   the   High   Court   was   exercising   the   appellate
jurisdiction. 
3.7 Making   the   above   submissions,   it   is   prayed   to   allow   the
present appeals.  
4. Present   appeals   are   vehemently   opposed   by   Shri   M.
Karpagavinayagam, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on
behalf of the respondents – original defendants. 
4.1 It   is   vehemently   submitted   by   learned   Senior   Advocate
appearing   on   behalf   of   original   defendants   that   the   High
Court   has   rightly   set   aside   the   ex­parte   judgment   and
decree   on   the   ground   that   the   ex­parte   judgment   and
decree   for   specific   performance   of   the   agreement   to   sell
was   not   in   consonance   with   the   procedure   enunciated
under Order XII of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). It is
submitted   that   the   High   Court   has   set   aside   the   ex­parte
judgment   and   decree   by   observing   that   while   passing   the
decree for specific performance, the requirement of proving
readiness   and   willingness   was   not   considered   by   the
learned   Trial   Court.   It   is   submitted   that   even   the
respondents – original defendants filed written submission
before   the   learned   Trial   Court.   However,   the   learned   Trial
9

Court   did   not   consider   the   said   aspect   while   passing   the
ex­parte judgment and decree. 
4.2 Now so far as the submissions made by the learned Senior
Advocate   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellant   on   the
maintainability of the revision petition under Article 227 of
the   Constitution   of   India,   the   learned   Senior   Advocate
appearing   on   behalf   of   the   respondents   –   original
defendants,   has   heavily   relied   upon   the   decisions   of   this
Court in the case of   Radhey Shyam and Anr. Vs. Chhabi
Nath and Ors.; (2015) 5 SCC 423  as well as in the case of
K.P.   Natarajan   and   Anr.   Vs.   Muthalammal   and   Ors;
(2021)   SCC   Online   SC   467.   Relying   upon   the   said
decisions, it is submitted that as held by this Court in the
aforesaid   decisions,   challenge   to   the   judicial   orders   could
lie   by   way   of   statutory   appeal   or   revision   or   under   Article
227   but   not   by   way   of   writ   under   Article   226   or   32.   It   is
submitted that in the present case, the defendants invoked
the   jurisdiction   of   the   High   Court   under   Section   115   of
CPC  as  well  as  Article  227 of  the  Constitution  of  India  by
way   of   two   different   revision   petitions   and   on   different
10

grounds.   That   therefore,   having   found   the   ex­parte
judgment and decree of specific performance of agreement
to   sell   passed   by   the   learned   Trial   Court   was   not   in
consonance   with   the   procedure   to   be   followed   under   the
CPC   and   the   relevant   aspects,   which   were   required   to   be
considered   under   the  provisions  of   the   Specific   Relief  Act,
were   not   considered,   the   High   Court   has   not   committed
any   error   in   setting   aside   the   ex­parte   judgment   and
decree. 
4.3 Making the above submissions and relying upon the above
decisions of this Court, it is prayed to dismiss the present
appeals.                     
5. We   have   heard   learned   Senior   Advocates   appearing   on
behalf   of   the   respective   parties   at   length.   We   have   also
gone   through   the   impugned   common   judgment   and   order
passed by the High Court.
6. At   the   outset,   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   the   learned
Trial   Court   passed   the   ex­parte   judgment   and   decree   in
the year 2012. That after a period of 1522 and 2345 days,
original   defendant   No.   1   and   defendants   No.   2   to   4,
respectively, filed the applications to set aside the ex­parte
11

judgment and decree. The learned Trial Court by a detailed
order refused to condone the delay of 1522 and 2345 days
by specifically observing that no sufficient cause has been
shown   in   explaining   the   huge   delay   in   filing   the
applications to set aside the ex­parte judgment and decree.
The   defendant   Nos.   2   to   4   alone   filed   the   revision
application   before   the   High   Court   challenging   the   order
passed by the learned Trial Court refusing to condone the
delay   of   2345   days.   Defendant   No.   1   did   not   file   any
revision  application   before  the  High  Court  challenging   the
order   passed   by   the   learned   Trial   Court   refusing   to
condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the
ex­parte   judgment   and   decree.   Instead,   defendant   No.   1
directly filed the revision application before the High Court
under   Article   227   of   the   Constitution   of   India   challenging
the ex­parte judgment and decree and without considering
the  legality  and validity  of  the order/orders passed by the
learned   Trial   Court   refusing   to  condone  the   huge   delay   of
1522/2345 days, by the impugned common judgment and
order, the High Court has set aside the ex­parte judgment
12

and   decree   in   exercise   of   powers   under   Article   227   of   the
Constitution of India. 
6.1 Having gone through the impugned common judgment and
order   passed   by   the   High   Court,   it   can   be   seen   that   as
such the High Court has not at all considered whether the
learned   Trial   Court   was   justified   in   refusing   to   condone
such a huge delay of 2345 days. The High Court has also
not   appreciated   and   considered   the   fact   that   as   such   the
order   passed   by   the   learned   Trial   Court   refusing   to
condone   the   delay   of   1522   days   in   so   far   as   original
defendant   No.   1,   had   attained   the   finality.   Original
defendant   No.   1   straightway   challenged   the   ex­parte
judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court by
way   of   revision   application   under   Article   227   of   the
Constitution   of   India.   Whether   the   revision   application
before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution
of   India   can   be   said   to   be   maintainable   or   not   has   not   at
all   been   considered.   Even   otherwise,   the   remedy   against
an   ex­parte   judgment   and   decree   available   to   the
defendants   was,   either   to   file   an   application   under   Order
IX   Rule   13   of   CPC   or   to   prefer   an   appeal   before   the   First
13

Appellate   Court.   The   defendants   availed   the   first   remedy
by way of filing the applications under Order IX Rule 13 of
CPC.   However,   there   was   a   huge   delay   of   1522   and   2345
days, which was not condoned by the learned Trial Court.
Without expressing  anything  on whether  the  learned Trial
Court   was   justified   in   refusing   to   condone   the   delay,   the
High   Court   has   simply   set   aside   the   order   passed   by   the
learned Trial Court refusing to condone the delay in so far
as original defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are concerned. The High
Court   ought   to   have   dealt   with   and   considered   the
question, whether, the learned Trial Court was justified in
refusing   to   condone   the   delay   or   not.   There   is   no
discussion   at  all   on   the   order  passed  by   the   learned   Trial
Court refusing to condone the delay.             
6.2 Even   otherwise   and   as   observed   hereinabove,   against   the
ex­parte   judgment   and   decree,   the   remedy   by   way   of   an
appeal   before   the   First   Appellate   Court   was   available.
Therefore,   the   High   Court   ought   not   to   have   entertained
the   revision   application   under   Section   115   of   CPC   and
under   Article   227   of   the   Constitution   of   India.   The   High
Court   ought   not   to   have   entertained   such   a   revision
14

application challenging  the ex­parte judgment and decree.
Once   there   was   a   statutory   alternative   remedy   by   way   of
an   appeal   available   to   the   defendants,   the   High   Court
ought   not   to   have   entertained   a   writ   petition   or   revision
application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
7. At   this   stage,   the   decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of
Virudhunagar  Hindu  Nadargal  Dharma  Paribalana  Sabai
and   Ors.   Vs.   Tuticorin   Educational   Society   and   Ors.;
(2019) 9 SCC 538 , is required to be referred to. In the said
decision,   it   is   observed   and   held   by   this   Court   that
wherever   the   proceedings   are   under   the   Code   of   Civil
Procedure and  the  forum  is  the civil court,  the availability
of   a   remedy   under   CPC,   will   deter   the   High   Court   and
therefore,   the   High   Court   shall   not   entertain   the   revision
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India especially in
a case where a specific remedy of appeal is provided under
the CPC itself. While holding so, it is observed and held in
paragraphs 11 to 13 as under: ­ 
“11.   Secondly, the High Court ought to have seen that when
a   remedy   of   appeal   under   Section   104(1)( i )   read   with   Order
43,   Rule   1( r )   of   the   Code   of   Civil   Procedure,   1908,   was
directly available, Respondents 1 and 2 ought to have taken
recourse   to   the   same.   It   is   true   that   the   availability   of   a
15

remedy of appeal may not always be a bar for the exercise of
supervisory   jurisdiction   of   the   High   Court.   In   A.
Venkatasubbiah   Naidu   v.   S.   Chellappan   [ A.   Venkatasubbiah
Naidu   v.   S. Chellappan ,   (2000)  7   SCC   695]  ,   this  Court   held
that “though no hurdle can be put against the exercise of the
constitutional   powers   of   the   High   Court,   it   is   a   well­
recognised   principle   which   gained   judicial   recognition   that
the   High   Court   should   direct   the   party   to   avail   himself   of
such remedies before he resorts to a constitutional remedy”.
12.   But   courts   should   always   bear   in   mind   a   distinction
between ( i ) cases where such alternative remedy is available
before civil courts in terms of the provisions of Code of Civil
Procedure,   and   ( ii )   cases   where   such   alternative   remedy   is
available   under   special   enactments   and/or   statutory   rules
and   the   fora   provided   therein   happen   to   be   quasi­judicial
authorities   and   tribunals.   In   respect   of   cases   falling   under
the   first   category,   which   may   involve   suits   and   other
proceedings   before   civil   courts,   the   availability   of   an
appellate   remedy   in   terms   of   the   provisions   of   CPC,   may
have to be construed as a near total bar. Otherwise, there is
a   danger   that   someone   may   challenge   in   a   revision   under
Article   227,   even   a   decree   passed   in   a   suit,   on   the   same
grounds   on   which   Respondents   1   and   2   invoked   the
jurisdiction   of   the   High   Court.   This   is   why,   a   3­member
Bench   of   this   Court,   while   overruling   the   decision   in   Surya
Dev Rai   v.   Ram Chander Rai   [ Surya Dev Rai   v.   Ram Chander
Rai ,   (2003)   6   SCC   675]   ,   pointed   out   in   Radhey
Shyam   v.   Chhabi   Nath   [ Radhey   Shyam   v.   Chhabi   Nath ,
(2015)   5   SCC   423   :   (2015)   3   SCC   (Civ)   67]   that   “orders   of
civil   court   stand   on   different   footing   from   the   orders   of
authorities   or   tribunals   or   courts   other   than   judicial/civil
courts”.
13.   Therefore   wherever   the   proceedings   are   under   the   Code
of   Civil   Procedure   and   the   forum   is   the   civil   court,   the
availability   of   a   remedy   under   the   CPC,   will   deter   the   High
Court,   not   merely   as   a   measure   of   self­imposed   restriction,
but   as   a   matter   of   discipline   and   prudence,   from   exercising
its power of superintendence under the Constitution. Hence,
the   High   Court   ought   not   to   have   entertained   the   revision
under   Article   227   especially   in   a   case   where   a   specific
remedy   of   appeal   is   provided   under   the   Code   of   Civil
Procedure itself.”   
16

7.1 Applying   the   law   laid   down  by   this   Court   in   the   aforesaid
decision   to   the   facts   of   the   case   on   hand,   the   High   Court
ought   not   to   have   entertained   the   revision   petition   under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the ex­parte
judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court in
view   of   a   specific   remedy   of   appeal   as   provided   under   the
Code   of   Civil   Procedure   itself.   Therefore,   the   High   Court
has   committed   a   grave   error   in   entertaining   the   revision
petition   under   Article   227   challenging   the   ex­parte
judgment   and   decree   passed   by   the   learned   Trial   Court
and in quashing  and setting aside the same in exercise of
powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.         
7.2 Even   otherwise   considering   the   impugned   common
judgment   and  order  passed  by  the  High   Court,  it  appears
that while setting aside the ex­parte judgment and decree,
the   High   Court   has   commented   upon   the   legality   and
validity of the judgment and decree passed by the learned
Trial   Court   as   if   the   High   Court   was   exercising   the
appellate   jurisdiction   against   the   judgment   and   decree
passed   by   the   learned   Trial   Court.   Before   considering   the
17

judgment   and   decree   on   merits   and/or   expressing
anything   on   merits   on   the   legality   and   validity   of   the
judgment   and   decree   (ex­parte),   the   High   Court   was
required   to   consider   whether   the   learned   Trial   Court   was
justified   in   passing   the   ex­parte   judgment   and   decree   or
not. The High Court was also required to consider whether
the learned Trial Court was justified in refusing to condone
the   delay   of   1522   and   2345   days   in   filing   the   petition
challenging   the   ex­parte   judgment   and   decree.   Therefore,
in   the   facts  and   circumstances  of   the  case,  the   impugned
common judgment and order  passed by the High Court is
unsustainable, both,  on law as well as on  facts. The High
Court   has   exceeded   in   its   jurisdiction   while   setting   aside
the   ex­parte   judgment   and   decree   in   exercise   of   powers
under   Article   227   of   the   Constriction   of   India.   The
impugned   common   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the
High Court is on irrelevant considerations and the relevant
aspects as observed hereinabove have not been considered
and   dealt   with   by   the   High   Court.   Under   the
circumstances,   the   impugned   common   judgment   and
18

order passed by the High Court deserve to be quashed and
set aside. 
      
8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present   Appeals   Succeed.   The   impugned   common
judgment and order dated 19.11.2021 passed by the High
Court   in   Civil   Revision   Petition   (NPD)  No.   1054/2021   and
Civil   Revision   Petition   (PD)   No.   1301/2021,   is   hereby
quashed and set aside. The ex­parte judgment and decree
passed   by   the   learned   Trial   Court   as   well   as   the   order(s)
passed by the learned Trial Court refusing to condone the
delay   of   2345   days   in   preferring   the   revision   petition(s)
challenging   the   ex­parte   judgment   and   decree   filed   by
original   defendant   Nos.   2   to   4   is/are   hereby   restored.
Present appeals are allowed accordingly. In the facts of the
case, there shall be no order as to costs.
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
July, 11 th
 2022 [B.V. NAGARATHNA]
19